Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee now considers that the Prime Minister's director of communications has been summoned to appear. However, Dimitri Soudas has rejected the motion passed by the committee on Tuesday, and he still has no intention of explaining his behaviour to the parliamentary committee.

Can the Prime Minister tell us if he instructed his director of communications not to appear before the ethics committee despite the motion that was passed on Tuesday?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the decision has already been made. Our government will continue to respect the tradition that goes back hundreds of years, which states that ministers, and not political assistants, are responsible for explaining and defending the government's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is of utmost importance because it has an impact on all committee work. I will ask it again because if it was the Prime Minister who ordered Dimitri Soudas not to appear before the committee, he, too, is at risk of being found in contempt of Parliament.

Can the Prime Minister confirm whether he personally instructed his director of communications not to testify, despite the committee's order?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the government as a whole made this decision. We will continue the tradition that has been followed for more than three centuries, which holds ministers responsible for explaining the government's position in the House and at committees. This tradition is has lasted a long time because it works well in our democracy. And that is our decision.

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted that the government supports the Security Council's decision. However, should it not also support resolutions 1850 and 1860, which call for the regular flow of humanitarian aid and food into Gaza?

We do not understand how the government can support the resolution concerning Iran, yet dodge the issue when the resolutions have to do with to Israel.

Does the Conservative policy consist of supporting the Security Council's resolutions when it suits them and ignoring the others?

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We fully support the free flow of humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, but we also support Israel's right to inspect the ships to ensure that weapons and other military equipment do not reach Gaza.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member for Markham—Unionville would not understand that a tax on Canadian banks would be passed on to Canadian consumers, so what he is actually advocating for is to put a tax on Canadian customers of banks.

What an odd thing to do, given that Canadian banks and Canadian taxpayers were not involved in any kind of bailout, unlike our friends in the United States and Europe. Why would he want to punish customers of Canadian banks?

Again, I am surprised that the member for Markham—Unionville, having been employed by the Royal Bank of Canada, would not understand how important it was for Canada and the Prime Minister to show leadership on this issue because there were a few countries that actually wanted to impose this tax on Canadians.

We were not willing and we are not willing to impose this tax on Canadians, which apparently the Liberal opposition wants to do.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has to stop misleading Canadians about liability in the event of a major oil spill. The current rules are clear: automatic liability is limited to $30 million on the east coast and $40 million elsewhere. Companies are not necessarily held accountable for 100% of the damages and the cleanup costs.

Will the minister make the necessary legislative changes to make companies 100% liable?

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have to stop scaring Canadians. We have one of the most solid systems in the world. We have a strict liability regime. Saying that absolute liability is limited is one thing, but there is also unlimited civil liability. That is what my colleague is not saying.

Again, no project will be approved here unless the regulators are convinced that the health of the workers and the protection of the environment will be ensured.

Mr. Speaker, like yesterday, the minister claims there is absolute liability and companies must provide guarantees. Maybe he should read section 167 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act because he will see the section sets a cap of $30 million. There is no guarantee of liability beyond that. The gulf blowout costs are already approaching $2 billion.

Why will the minister not protect Canadian taxpayers and ensure oil companies assume full liability? Cap the leak, not the liability.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be clear here. We enforce world-class standards. Oil and gas rigs in the Canadian offshore, the equipment and operator training must meet these strict standards. Offshore companies must have an emergency response plan and back-up contingency plans approved by responsible regulators before any authorization to drill is issued.

Canadian regulators will not allow any offshore activity unless they are convinced that the environment and the safety of the workers will be protected.

Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions the Iranian leader has expressed hostile feelings toward Israel, indifference toward the United Nations, and blatant disregard for the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran's nuclear program is not contained, this situation could quickly turn into the most serious and most dangerous situation our generation will ever have to face. It undermines global non-proliferation efforts, and it undermines global peace and security.

Could the Prime Minister please tell the House what the government is doing to hold Iran to account for its deplorable actions?

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs just said, Canada fully supports the UN Security Council's recent series of sanctions against Iran.

Our concern about Iran's nuclear program is, of course, a long held position of this government. We welcome the latest round of sanctions voted upon by the United Nations Security Council. Canada will do everything in its power to work with our partners to fully implement those sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Industry used his office to hawk floor cleaning products, the Prime Minister gave him the thumbs up. When he raided federal coffers to build gazebos, raise sunken boats, and build fake lakes with fake canoes, the Prime Minister said it would put us on the international map. Well, we are on the map now. Thanks to the Mad Hatter of Muskoka, we have become an international laughing stock.

Either the Prime Minister shares the outrage that average Canadians are feeling or he supports his $1 billion booty run by ShamWow Tony.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear here. A good part of the costs for the G8 will involve security matters. Another part will be involving the promotion of Canada, for which we are extremely proud.

I would invite my colleague to get on board to promote Canada and help us do the best thing possible. Of course, we know every time we have something that is put forward in the House, the NDP votes against it.

Mr. Speaker, he is not going to get his free set of Muskoka steak knives with excuses like that.

Let us be clear. The cost of this shindig would lift every senior citizen in this country out of poverty. Instead, it is being blown on ridiculous ego projects backed by even more ridiculous excuses.

Do the Conservatives really think that changing the name of the fake lake to a reflecting pond, a water feature or an international tourist pavilion will fool Canadians? They have abused our trust. They have abused taxpayers' dollars.

Why are they abusing the intelligence of average Canadians with pitiful endorsements of this discredited minister?

Pierre PoilievreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, that member and his questions are like ShamWow without the wow. This is a member who promised his constituents election after election that he would vote to scrap the wasteful billion dollar Liberal long gun registry. Then, when members of this side tried to hold him accountable, he made insulting comments about them.

Why does he not face the fact that he is in the process of joining with his coalition pals to break his word and break his trust with his own constituents on the gun registry?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is going before the Federal Court to try to get out of a request from the Military Police Complaints Commission, which is calling for access to some important documents regarding the allegations of torture of Afghan prisoners.

Why is the government using the courts to avoid being held accountable? What does this government have to hide?

Rob NicholsonConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It is quite the contrary.

The government is, of course, party to these actions. It appears before the courts to make sure that all legislation is complied with in this country. I cannot understand why the hon. member would not be supportive of that in all circumstances.